It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why the US Navy will be destroyed in Hormuz

page: 8
58
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Ancient Champion
 


Only because someone stated that the USA would nuke Iran first. I didnt open the nuke can.




posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
Bigger is better? So says the USA, the basic fallacy that the science of war equates to the art of war. Oh how naive are we Americans. Did anyone remember Millennium Challenge 2002?

Well Iran has built its naval arsenal on speedboats with missiles, and here is how it will be played out according to US war games simulation:

en.wikipedia.org...


Red received an ultimatum from Blue, essentially a surrender document, demanding a response within 24 hours. Thus warned of Blue's approach, Red used a fleet of small boats to determine the position of Blue's fleet by the second day of the exercise. In a preemptive strike, Red launched a massive salvo of cruise missiles that overwhelmed the Blue forces' electronic sensors and destroyed sixteen warships. This included one aircraft carrier, ten cruisers and five of six amphibious ships. An equivalent success in a real conflict would have resulted in the deaths of over 20,000 service personnel. Soon after the cruise missile offensive, another significant portion of Blue's navy was "sunk" by an armada of small Red boats, which carried out both conventional and suicide attacks that capitalized on Blue's inability to detect them as well as expected.[1]


Let me get that straight, One aircraft carrier destroyed, ten cruisers, and five amphibious ships? The Red teams commander was told that it doesn't count because the enemy won and they restarted the game with a scripted war and Commander Paul K. Van Riper quit because it was rigged.

It seems to me that there are a lot of war mongers here saying that the US navy is untouchable, let this be a lesson that we may sustain some losses, maybe not a carrier but a few small ships.

Also do we remember the Chinese sub popping up inside a wargame scenario? What a Face palm

This is the Red Teams Commander making a statement:



Was the game rigged? There were accusations that Millennium Challenge was rigged. I can tell you it was not. It started out as a free-play exercise, in which both Red and Blue had the opportunity to win the game. However, about the third or fourth day, when the concepts that the command was testing failed to live up to their expectations, the command then began to script the exercise in order to prove these concepts. This was my critical complaint. You might say, "Well, why didn't these concepts live up to the expectations?" I think they were fundamentally flawed in that they leaned heavily on technology. They leaned heavily on systems analysis of decision-making.


edit on 30-12-2011 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)


you ever turned in a paper with a wiki on the works' cited page by any chance? For being "THE_PROFESSIONAL" I'd expect more professionalism.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 


If I came to your house and took over for your own good, would you thank me for it?


I know a few Iranians. Most want that nut out of power. They will welcome the regime change.

It won't take long. Just relax and watch my cool Japanese toy video.



It turns out, we know what we are doing. It's a chess game.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


Well if I put sanctions on your house not allowing you to do business or trade with your neighbors and sustain yourself then yes it is perfectly fine because I would be at fault so close the streets away my friend, I would deserve it.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
He resigned as commander of the exercises, not necessarly his position in the military.


He officialy retired 5 years before the exercise.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 


That is actually a toy because it cannot fly at 50,000 feet, doesn't have advanced optics, no hellfire missiles, no stealth technology..etc..



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 


the iranian poster hmdphantom differs from your opinions.No one wants USA to hone in and start crap not even natives and libya is still in civil war unlike what your media says.I happen to know oilmen in ENI and they confirmed this.






edit on 31-12-2011 by mkgandhas because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


Yeah, but it works!

I'm impressed. I guess it wouldn't be too hard militarize it. Just scale it up and add
a few bells and whistles.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by susp3kt

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


If I had a dime for every time an Iranian speedboat made a run at my ship I would be a rich man.


Are you telling us that you have engaged Iranian speed boats from your carrier in the recent past?


It is almost impossible to sink a Nimitz class carrier.


I know you are probably proud of the ship on which you were/are stationed, but this is an erroneous claim. It would not be unfathomable to think one could be taken out.


*cough* Sea-based S-300 Missles... *cough*

Not....


Short of a air bursting nuclear warhead i do not see missiles sinking a US aircraft carrier its not to probable.. depends on where they hit...

Giving the iranians to much credit.. Yes war is unpredictable but sinking a carrier with missiles and speed boats is one hell of a reach.



Iran currently has these in stock!
edit on 31-12-2011 by susp3kt because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


Yeah, but it works!

I'm impressed. I guess it wouldn't be too hard militarize it. Just scale it up and add
a few bells and whistles.



Bells and whistles don't kill people and would alarm everyone to it



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


Flag and Star to you THE_PROFFESIONAL.

This has been an interesting read. Not because of the facts and data you provided (well done), but because of the reactions of those replying on this thread. Having an unbiased view. However, as I continued to read I began to recognize a pattern. You present data and a hypothesis, and others berate and contradict. You then circle back with the same data, sticking to your evidence...


You propose, with data that the United States could be beaten in an engagement in the persian gulf by a determined enemy with less resources and technology. You even cite comments by our (I am an american) military leadership that we as a country have not learned from the lessons of our excercises. One only needs to look back at the Falklands conflict and the sinking of the Sheffield to realize the validity of your post.

Even though you presented a great point, well thought out and backed by data, people have replied on a totally different level. You have looked at this with eyes wide open, and are openly concerned while those replying are at 10,000 feet citing MSM opinions and propaganda from websites and a total lack of data. Totally out of touch with your post. They are displaying an American arrogance. Ironically by those that have not fought and lost (either their lives, friend's lives, limbs, have become divorced, alcoholics, etc.) who want more war from the comfort of their recliners to be watched on their big screen TV's. Sad, really.

So no, a mythical nuclear device in Iran is not worth an aircraft carrier or more American lives. And to those that flame this post, get out of your easy chair, pick up an M-16 and head to Persia and see the horror of war yourself and then comment.

Thanks for the read.
edit on 31-12-2011 by ArcAngel because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-12-2011 by ArcAngel because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 


Just looks like a beach ball to me LOL. It might be harder to shoot it down because it gives a false sense of the actual target size, meaning most of the target is empty air, all its vitals have a fake ball around it so the challenger does not know where its true vulnerable spots are.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 10:34 AM
link   
The US Navy isn't getting destroyed by anyone . Please stop with the outdated war game scenarios and perpetuating the lie of the Chinese sub that popped up in the middle of a battle group. They came within striking range and were discovered. They did not go popping up in the middle of some battle group. Stop spreading that rehashed dis-info. The strait isn't even an issue any blockade would be obliterated.

We may suck as civilian police and protectors but for running roughshod over any enemy we have never had an issue. Name one war where the full might and wrath of the US military did not come through. Russia has an old army and they are currently trying to upgrade their technology and are looking outside of the country to find it. We arent trying to take over Russia or China therefore any home field advantages are mute. Once China's submarine navy is neutralized they can be bombarded from shore into submission once more

China hasn't even seen real battle unless you include running over their civilians. Stop trying to talk up the inexperience and aging tech of the closest world powers. On top of that we always playing the away games . Even if we got hurt out in the middle east who is coming over here to beat us down coast to coast?

Not one Nation not two nations. Don't forget as bad as the US may seem we also are not alone any move Russia or China tries to corroborate we got allies too.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by mkgandhas
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 


the iranian hmdphantom differs from your opinions.No one wants USA to hone in and start crap not even natives and libya is still in civil war unlike what your media says.I happen to know oilmen in ENI and they confirmed this.




The people of Libya will work it out.
They just need some time. I see a very bright future for the people of Libya.

BP will help them out with badly needed oil revenue.
----
Iran will require something new. Stay tuned.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


David and Goliath.


War is unpredictable. Every battle is different and you can write all the scripts you like, have as much firepower as you can get your hands on, and there will still be things that tip the balance that were never expected.

I don't pay much attention to those who say America is the most powerful force capable of anything. It's mindless cheer-leading and boasting, it's just arrogance, and if it were true America wouldn't have been in several theaters of war as long as they have been over the last decade!

One fundamental difference is that soldiers for other countries expect to die for their country. They will gladly "martyr" themselves. While the US military would have trouble finding one soldier willing to carry out a kamikaze mission like that, they have hundreds of thousands of men who would end their lives for their regime.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by OptimusSubprime
 

I laughed so hard when i heard that Nimitz could go as fast as 70mph.
Get on the ground mate.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by ArcAngel
 


Thank you very much my friend, I was expecting quite a backlash and rightly so. How dare I challenge the superioiryt of the US Navy.

So far in this thread I have been called:



self loathing america hater


courtsey of elrey72011, and



consider yourself American


by IsraeliGuy.

Truth hurts. I am glad I could provide an unbiased viewpoint of certain susceptibility that the US Navy may encounter if such an engagement happens, glad you enjoyed the thread



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 10:39 AM
link   
Valid points all around, but with respect in my opinion I think both sides of the debate in this topic are rushing to hyperbole a bit.

On the matter of U.S. losses: Iran does have the capability to wage asymmetrical warfare in Hormuz, to harass and potentially even sink U.S. vessels. In any military operation there is always the risk of suffering losses. However, the wargame was not necessarily reflective of Iran's capabilities or military posture at the time of an actual operation to block Hormuz (or, on our side, to clear and secure it.) The result of the early, unscripted maneuvers also assume that Iran would conduct its offensive with the same efficiency, efficacy, and speed with which the commanders did here. That is by no means assured, and some would argue that it's actually improbable at best.

On the matter of U.S. offensives against Iran in response to the sinking of ships: There most certainly would be retaliation. It doesn't matter if it's "fair game" or not. If they sink U.S. ships, there would definitely be an escalation, just as there was an escalation of the air strikes in the Balkans following the downing of one of our F-117s. However, while it's true that if we wanted to, we could go balls to the wall and eventually annihilate Iran, I seriously doubt the use of nuclear weapons would be on the table. Nor would they be necessary in my view. Eventually, if for no other reason than through attrition, Iran's anti-ship capabilities would be exhausted and eroded. Once that happened and their air defenses were eliminated, they would be virtually defenseless. (Though an occupation, were that an objective - which seems unlikely to me at this juncture, lets hope - would of course still carry the same risks the occupation of Iraq did, but multiplied many times over, so don't get me wrong - there would be losses.)

Now, please don't take anything I just said as any sort of endorsement of military action against Iran or Iranian military action in Hormuz. I think either act would be foolish in the extreme, unnecessary, and bordering on insane. Iran knows that a nuclear first strike on Israel or allies would result in massive nuclear retaliation, and that blocking Hormuz would result in even more economic isolation. They are not suicidal. The real threat the West perceives, I suspect, is not the possession of a nuclear weapons capability, but rather nuclear proliferation in the Middle East. And there are - at least in my opinion - ways to contain that without having to go to war with Iran. But then, human beings have never been big on letting cool heads prevail or being rational. At least not in my experience. So lets hope this will be the exception.

Bottom line: both sides in this thread's discussion have valid points, but things aren't likely to get as bad as some people are suggesting in my opinion. Unless someone with a lot of influence and power wants them to for God knows what reason. In which case, of course, well... that's the wild card, isn't it? Lets hope not. A true war with Iran would carry a high cost in human lives.

Peace.
edit on 12/31/2011 by AceWombat04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 10:40 AM
link   
Iran cannot shut down the Strait of Hormuz without full blown war escalation.
It won't happen. It's a bluff.
But the Russians and Chinese are certainly backing Iran. This bellicose talk of
the U.S. and "Israel" turning Iran into "glass" is also nonsense. Iran is immense.
It has assassination cells in the U.S., "Israel", and Britain.
It has hundreds of thousands of warheads capable of laying waste to "Israel",
and projections say hundreds of them are nuclear-tipped. They have had nuclear-
tipped warheads since as early as 1992. People need to recall the downfall of
the Soviet Union coincided with the rise of the Ayatollahs and a growing friendship
between elements within those two countries. Not to mention the long friendship
with North Korea and China.
I'll also add that Russia has Tesla technology which can shut down all the electric
power and data systems in "Israel", which may prohibit them from even being able
to launch a nuclear assault. Of course, there is nothing within "Israel" which could
stop the massive bloodshed of 50 million+ Muslims simultaneously taking to the streets
and massacring that population wholesale, either. It would happen to Jews everywhere,
nowhere would be safe for them.
edit on 31-12-2011 by RDprofessor because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
reply to post by tkwasny
 




Many of the publically released "simulations" are psyop bait to direct thinking in the emenies minds.

Riiiiiiight. Internal Pentagon war games are psyops for the enemy?
And I guess the general resigned too because of a psyops uh?


Huge holes in the simulations are left out intentionally so as to give the enemy confidence to move forward with those actions.

Huge holes in simulations that nobody knows anything about except the Pentagon officials who were there... or are you saying Iran got spies inside the Pentagon war gaming for a war against Iran?


A general resigning or that is resigned is doing his job when he publically releases the psyop data. He's still on the payroll for life, like me. Only be doing this on the inside for +40 years, but that's a psyop right there, so don't believe me. No one wants you to believe anything except the double cross. Thanks to shilling and sucker-dome it works.
edit on 31/12/11 by masqua because: fixed bb code




top topics



 
58
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join